Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Remand Order, Emphasizes Substantial Compliance with Arrest Protocols
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by Nitin Kumar Singh challenging the legality of his arrest and subsequent remand in connection with a massive fake degree racket at Monad University. The division bench, comprising Justices Salil Kumar Rai and Pramod Kumar Srivastava, upheld the procedural validity of the arrest, emphasizing substantial compliance with constitutional and statutory provisions.
The petitioner had contested the remand order dated May 18, 2025, arguing that the arrest memo failed to include the grounds for arrest, thus infringing upon his rights under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 50 of the Cr.P.C., now encapsulated in Section 47 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The petitioner sought the quashing of the remand order, declaring the arrest illegal and demanding immediate release on interim bail.
The High Court, however, found that substantial compliance was achieved through a contemporaneously prepared recovery memo, which detailed the recovered items, including fake degrees and marksheets, and was signed by the accused. This document served as a direct communication of the factual and legal grounds of arrest, thereby fulfilling the substantive constitutional requirement.
The court distinguished the present case from the precedents set in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), where strict written communication was mandated. The judges noted that the recovery memo, signed by the petitioner, effectively communicated the grounds of arrest, aligning with the principles laid down in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, which prioritize substance over procedural formality.
Further, the court observed that the petitioner was produced before the Magistrate within the statutory 24-hour period, negating claims of illegal detention. The remand order was deemed valid, as it was passed after careful judicial consideration of the materials presented.
The petitioner's plea for parity with co-accused who were granted interim bail was also rejected, as the court found no procedural errors warranting the quashing of the remand order. The court advised the petitioner to pursue regular bail through the statutory channels.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding procedural integrity while balancing individual rights with law enforcement duties. The dismissal of the writ petition reinforces the principle that mere technical defects in arrest documentation do not invalidate the process when substantive compliance is evident.
Bottom Line:
Mandatory compliance of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of Cr.P.C./Section 47 of BNSS, 2023 - Failure to communicate grounds of arrest in writing is a procedural irregularity, not a fatal defect, when substantial compliance is achieved through contemporaneous documentation such as a detailed recovery memo.
Statutory provision(s): Article 21, Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, Sections 47, 58 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 50 of Cr.P.C., Section 57 of Cr.P.C., Section 439 of Cr.P.C., Section 480 of BNSS.
Nitin Kumar Singh @ Nitin Kumar v. State of UP, (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2822919
